Western sanctions on Crimea counterproductive
“If one is free at heart, no man-made chains can bind one to servitude.” These are the words of Steve Biko, South African anti-apartheid fighter and leader of the Black Consciousness Movement on the people right to self-determination.
Exactly a month ago—November 13—I and a group of journalists on a media tour in Crimea, sat for a briefing on status of the semi-autonomous peninsular that, five years ago, voted in the words of Sergey Aksyonov, head of the republic, “return home”.
Our meeting with the leaders of National Cultural Communities caucus comprising public, political, religious and local organisations was at the historic and iconic Livadia Palace, the venue of the famous February 11, 1945 Yalta Conference that plotted the World War II victory.
Here, the three leaders of the allied forces against Germany’s Adolf Hitler—Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union, Winston Churchill (United Kingdom) and Franklin Roosevelt (United States)—sat and deliberated the defeat of the enemy—and this marked end of the war.
Here, a 116-roomed architectural wonder, where the last of imperial Russian rulers, Tzar Nicholas II and family, enjoyed their summer, the trio declared: “We have considered and determined the military plans of the three allied powers for the final defeat of the common enemy...The timing, scope, and coordination of new and even more powerful blows to be launched by our armies and air forces into the heart of Germany from the East, West, North, and South have been fully agreed and planned in detail”.
Their common goal was anchored on words borrowed from the Atlantic Charter, an earlier declaration between Roosevelt and Churchill issues in 1941, which stated; “afford assurance that all the men in all the lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want.”
And we sat and listened to the speeches on the status of Crimea from the leaders in this cultural melting pot that is Sevastopol, the largest city on the peninsula and a major Black Sea port, the irony of the day was not lost on us.
That a territory that hosted a meeting to herald a new dawn of freedom and peace in the world is today struggling to arise and free itself from the strangulation of sanctions imposed on it for trying to self-determine.
But its heroic spirit has not been crushed. Five years ago, the Crimeans voted to not just be part of Russia instead of Ukraine, but also to economically and socially liberate themselves.
This decision unsettled the geopolitical power play and balance, resulting in a clash pitting the US and its allies against Russia. To the West, Crimea belongs to Ukraine.
In this war, it is the grass—the Crimeans on who the question of their identity and belonging rests— who are bearing the brunt of the zero-sum geopolitics game.
But despite the sanctions, the referendum has thrust them into their spring, which they have embraced with vigour and religious sense of purpose to “protect their sovereignty and improve their own lives”.
To the world, they cry out; “don’t deliver us, but hear us”. And what is their story? “Lift the yoke of sanctions that try to keep us in servitude.”
At a press conference in Moscow at the end of the tour, United Russia Party deputy secretary and Foreign Relations deputy leader in the Upper House, Andrei Klimov, decried what he termed a campaign of misinformation by those who pretend not know what the people Crimea want.
He said the tour by the journalists from Africa, Asia and Europe will help them “see for themselves the situation on the ground instead of hearing about it”.
For the media, the tour, the first since the 2014 controversial referendum, was an eye opener: we saw a people determined to break the “man-made chains” and seek partnerships, friendship and trade with rest of the world.
The Crimeans—residents of a unique cultural and historical conclave—want to reap the fruit of the peace seed germinated by Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill for the world on their soil 54 years ago. Is this too much to ask for in a free world that espouses democracy?
Certainly, not.
